ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank his wife Tara for her unending support. Special thanks to Terry
Okahashi for his assistance with the physical tests. Thanks to Dr. Scott Adan and Newlan
Malmquist for their financial support of the physical tests. Finally, thanks to my parents
David and Julie Ross for teaching me to work for the things I want.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Braced frame structures depend on axially loaded members to withstand tension and or
compression cycles without buckling or significant deformation. This very common type of
construction has recently been found to be vulnerable to large earthquake forces. In addition
to brace damage, damage has been observed in the connections, beams, and to a lesser extent
in the columns (Taranath 1998, pp.415-17). Recent years have seen a movement within the
structural seismic design community to use dampers to reduce structural response and
therefore protect these components. Structural dampers are used to dissipate high amounts of
energy, reducing the displacement of the structure. By reducing the interstory drift of the
structure, the magnitude of damage sustained by the structural and nonstructural components
is also reduced. Today there are several types of structural dampers ranging from fluid and
friction dampers to viscoelastic dampers. Recently developed technologies such as the
Buckling-Restrained Brace (BRB) have shown that this field of engineering continues to
grow. Each of these devices has advantages but they all share the disadvantage of being very
specialized and relatively expensive. Each type consists of a particular system of

components used to absorb or dissipate the applied energy. The uses of these devices have
generally been limited to those projects that require their high-performance capabilities.

This research has developed a low cost structural steel "PERFORATED PLATE DAMPER"
that can be installed into diagonal bracing systems. The device consists of one or more thin
steel plates oriented in-plane with the structural frame. The plates are pulled in tension in
various directions, thereby yielding the steel. Acting as a controlled fuse, the damper can
absorb significant amounts of energy through tension and shear, thus reducing the overall
displacement and damage of the structure. This simple, cost- effective plate damper
configuration makes it possible to add structural damping to all classes of braced buildings.
This includes existing as well as new buildings.

1.2 Approach

To develop a perforated plate structural damper, a combination of nonlinear finite element

analysis and physical testing was implemented. Preliminary linear analysis allowed the
exploration of alternative configurations. Next, experimental testing provided verification of
the analytical findings. A nonlinear finite element analysis produced a thorough exploration
of the nonlinear behavior of the deforming element. Finally, a Single Degree of Freedom
(SDOF) dynamic analysis was performed to study the behavior of the system subjected to
earthquake ground motions of varying characteristics and magnitudes.

It is important to note the iterative nature of this research. Creating an entirely new device
requires a combination of curiosity and risk taking. The development of the

Perforated Plate Damper has progressed in phases. An initial configuration was developed
and tested and much was learned from the first attempt. Changes were incorporated into the
next configuration then testing and development resumed. This process has repeated itself
multiple times. The presentation of results in this report is much like a journal; each iteration
presents new thoughts and improvements to the design.

The final result is a combination of many ideas. These ideas have been validated by physical
testing and analytical modeling.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

The first portion of this literature review is intended to briefly review the several types of
structural damping systems that exist and to draw upon any similarities in behavior or
analysis techniques. Following this section, a history of the specific steel yielding devices
will be given. Finally, several governing seismic concepts such as hysteretic analysis and
cyclic testing will be discussed.

2.2 Structural Damping Systems

Structural damping systems can be grouped into two classifications: hysteretic and
viscoelastic. Hysteretic devices depend upon the relative displacements within the device to
dissipate energy. These devices include metallic yielding devices, friction dampers, and base
isolation devices. Viscoelastic devices dissipate energy according to both the relative
displacements and the relative velocities within the device. These devices include solid
devices and fluid devices. Several types of hysteretic and viscoelastic systems are shown in
Table 2-1 and will be discussed.

Table 2-1 Energy dissipation devices

These damping devices can be incorporated into structures in many ways. The majority of
them are designed to be part of the bracing system for the structure. Configuration types
include single diagonal bracing, X-bracing, chevron bracing, and eccentric bracing. These
configurations will be referenced in the discussion of each device type.

Added Damping and Stiffness (ADAS) devices are metallic yielding devices consisting of
parallel steel plates designed to bend together in flexure. The plates are usually tapered in a
triangular shape allowing yielding to occur uniformly across the entire plate. These devices
are generally designed to connect the braces of a chevron brace to the beam.

Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRB), also known as Unbonded Braces, are a composite system
of steel and concrete. A steel core is encased within an outer steel tube filled with concrete. A
patented "unbonding" material is placed between the steel core and the concrete to reduce
friction. These devices are connected to the structural frame in several configurations
depending on the size of member needed for design.

With this design the steel core is enabled to perform well in both tension and compression.
The member behaves with ordinary steel properties in tension. When the steel member is
subjected to compression, the concrete case resists buckling allowing the steel to reach yield
strength, thereby increasing the strength and energy dissipation capabilities of the member.

Eccentrically braced frames are a unique type of structural system that attempts to combine
the strength and stiffness of a braced frame with the inelastic behavior and energy dissipation
characteristics of a moment frame (Taranath 1998). These frames do not have specially
designed components that are added to the frame. They use only regular steel sections
normally found in design. Instead of designing the frame braces to connect at the corners of
the frame or with other braces, the connection points of the braces are separated to form a
"fuse" section along the beam. This design requires that the columns and braces be stronger
than the fuse section to control the yielding region. When the frame is subjected to lateral
motion the stiff portions of frame rotate causing the weaker fuse portion to yield.

Base isolation systems are designed to dampen and dissipate much of the earthquake energy
at the ground level before it moves into the building. The entire weight of the structure is
placed on multiple base isolation devices. These devices generally consist of a large vertical
lead core surrounded by a layer of rubber. As the structure receives the horizontal ground
motion of the earthquake, the lead core deforms to dissipate energy. The structure will still
move horizontally, so it must be further isolated from the ground by providing a channel of
open space around the foundation of the building referred to as a "moat."
7

This system is generally applied to stiff buildings lacking the ductility required to withstand a
large earthquake. The system increases the natural period of the building usually allowing it
to be designed for a lower magnitude of ground acceleration. Steel yielding devices are a
specific type of metallic yielding device. They are generally a smaller, separate component
that is inserted into a braced frame as shown in Figure 2-1. They depend upon the cyclic
nature of earthquake ground motion to deform the frame in reversing directions. With each
displacement cycle, the damper component dissipates energy through yielding its particular
steel shape. Because they are the focus of this research, they will be discussed in detail later
in the literature review. Friction dampers behave much like steel yielding dampers in that
they depend upon displacement of the structural frame. The difference is that no member of
the friction device is intended to yield. These devices are designed with friction pads, much
like automobile brake pads, that grind against each other during movement. Like the previous
device, friction dampers are generally small devices inserted as components within the frame
bracing. As the structural frame deforms, the device is forced to elongate along one diagonal
axis and compress along the opposite diagonal axis. The diagonal members being forced into
compression slide into the center of the device passing through bolted center portion. The
sliding of these displacements causes the friction pads to grind against one another.

Viscoelastic (VE) solid dampers generally consist of layers of thermoplastic rubber,

sandwiched between steel plates. The VE material is bonded to the steel. Viscoelastic solid
devices dissipate energy through shear deformation of the VE layers, which also depends on
the vibrational frequency, strain, and ambient temperature.

Figure 2-1 Lateral movement of the frame with inserted steel yielding damper

A viscous fluid damper generally consists of a piston in the damper housing filled

with a compound of silicone or similar type of oil, and the piston may contain a number of
small orifices through which the fluid may pass from one side to the other. The damper thus
dissipates energy through the movement of a piston in a highly viscous fluid, using the
concept of fluid orificing.

2.3 History of Steel Yielding Devices

A reversible-yielding device may be simple in its appearance and function.

Several unique configurations have been developed in the past making it difficult to attribute
the origin of such devices to one person or location. The earliest work discovered detailing a
yielding device to be used as a structural damper was published by R. G. Tyler in 1985 in
New Zealand (Martinez-Rueda 2002, see also Roufegarinejad 2002). His studies involved a
yielding frame constructed of round steel bars. Tyler states that a form of this device was first
suggested in the late 1970s by David Smith and Robert Henry of Auckland, New Zealand.

Under cyclic loading, Tyler showed that the device would yield into a

parallelogram and then reverse, providing a stable cyclic behavior. It was also shown that this
type of device could perform without accruing progressive slack that is commonly found in
cross-braced frames under severe seismic loading. The yielding frame was shown to perform
well under many cycles. The most significant limitation of this system is that the yielding
round bar has a constant cross section. This causes a high ductility demand around the
corners and allows only a small portion of the device to contribute to the energy dissipation.

A similar design was studied by Gennady Ostrikov in 1983. Few details are

known about this work that originated in the former Soviet Union (Ostrikov 1983). Because
this design is very similar to the work produced by Tyler it will not be discussed further in
this report.

In 1988, Dimitar Jurukovski and Boris Simeonov, of the Republic of Macedonia, published
their work on a device of similar shape but differing materials (Jurukovski 1988, 1995). The
yielding device proposed by Jurukovski consists of 12cm square, hollow steel sections filled
with concrete. The intent of this device was to increase the energy absorbing capacity of the
structure while also increasing the lateral rigidity. As planned, Jurukovski's device was much
stiffer than other yielding devices, partially because all of the joints were rigidly welded. The
device was shown to perform well through tests. It provided increased rigidity and energy
absorption. Failure eventually would occur through flexure, usually at the welded joints. This
failure mode was seen as favorable to Jurukovski. He claimed that this system could save
20% of the

10

necessary material for the structure. He also claimed that the efficiency of the system
increases with an increase in height of the structure.

Jurukovski et al. (1995) made note of the possible limitations of his proposed yielding device
when installed into moment resisting frames. They found that the devices performed very
well for both moderate and severe earthquakes in which the surrounding frame would
experience inelastic deformation; however, for lower intensity earthquakes, when the
surrounding moment frame remains elastic, damage often occurred to the yielding element
decreasing its future effectiveness.

The final major contributor of unique designs for yielding devices is V. Ciampi of Italy
(Ciampi 1992, 1993a, 1993b; see also Martinez-Rueda 2002). Ciampi explains that in the
1990s Italy was very interested in the use of energy dissipation as a means of seismic
protection, but principally for bridge structures. The majority of works published by Ciampi
detail the use of yielding devices within building structures. In addition, Ciampi proposes the
idea of using the yielding devices as 'nonconventional dissipative connections' between
adjacent structures or independent parts of the same structure (Ciampi 1993b). For the
purposes of this literature review, only the applications within braced structures are
considered.

Ciampi's designs, three of which will be presented here, have a few unique innovations. First,
Ciampi explained that the yielding device was not limited only to square frames. He showed
that by designing the yielding device to be geometrically similar to the external frame, the
system could be used for rectangular bays. Second, Ciampi used a non-constant cross section
for the yielding members. By varying the cross section linearly with the distance from the
center of each member the author suggests that

11

the member would plastify uniformly along the length in flexure. There is a small section of
uniform cross section in the center of each member to ensure that plastification occurs
primarily due to bending. At first, it seems that Ciampi did not account for the tensile forces
that are certainly present. It was shown that this flaw was the cause of failure in his first
design. In subsequent designs Ciampi resolves this flaw.

Ciampi's first design was published in 1990. This first configuration had a varying width of
the member as opposed to a varying depth used in later devices. The members in this device
were welded together. Results from cyclic testing showed that strain hardening occurs in the
device due to the geometric nonlinearities of the deforming device. Also failure occurred at
the welded connections. The failure of the welds was attributed to their proximity to the
zones of maximum plastic deformation, which require the most ductility, and due to local
brittleness by thermal shock due to welding. Ciampi's second design corrected the identified
limitations found in his first design. This device consists of a single steel plate with members
of varying depth. This device is much lighter, uses no welds, and requires far less fabrication
time and materials. Cyclic tests of this device showed an undesirable accumulation of axial
plastic deformation due to tension. This might be attributed to the long, slender members. The
accumulated axial deformation resulted in the expansion of the size of the device, which
compromised the behavior.

To remedy the axial expansion of the device, Ciampi proposed adding pinned steel plates
parallel to the sides of the device. Because of the pinned connections of the complementary
plates, these added members acted only in tension ensuring that plastic deformations in the
device occurred primarily in bending. Another important feature of

12

the complementary plates is that they added valuable redundancy to the system. Cyclic tests
of this modified device have shown stable hysteretic behavior without excessive elongation
of the bending members.

Ciampi also devised a method to measure the effectiveness of similar steel yielding devices
(Ciampi 1993a). He explains that because of the crucial role that these devices play in
protecting the structure in which they are used, it is critical to asses the safety of the devices
against premature failure. It is shown that this is not a simple task because much of the testing
carried out on these devices is of constant amplitude symmetrical about the origin. How then
is it possible to compare these test, and the effectiveness of the device, with other devices
tested with general random cycles occurring during an earthquake? A single device can be
shown to perform well or very poorly by simply changing the loading procedure. Yielding
devices of this type have always shown better performance when the imposed displacements
are symmetrical about the origin.

Ciampi explains that a rational way to compare damping devices, regardless of the testing
protocol they are subjected to, would be to use a form of the total dissipated hysteretic
energy. The equation for dissipated hysteretic energy is shown below as Equation 2-1.

J'

P P Equation 2-1

This simple method must be slightly corrected to accurately display the effectiveness of the
device under different loading schemes. It was suggested that the

13

method used must 'differentiate the damage associated with a smaller number of large yield
excursions as contrasted to a large number of smaller excursions' and must 'account explicitly
for the different damage potential associated with different amplitudes of inelastic excursions'
(Ciampi 1993a). In other words, Ciampi wanted to develop an equation that would provide a
consistent performance value for a given device regardless of the testing protocol. This
number would then give an overall assessment of the device. Ciampi proposed a 'Damage
Function' as shown below in Equation 2-2.

J'

DF= \F p S p P

This equation is a weighted form of the equation for hysteretic dissipated energy. It multiplies
the energy dissipated within the plastic region of one cycle by the maximum plastic
deformation of that cycle. Because he value obtained from the function has been multiplied a
second time by the plastic displacement, the value has been distorted and should be used only
for comparative purposes. This function has been shown to help normalize the performance
and capacity properties of yielding devices, providing a better comparison with other types of
steel yielding dampers. A graph comparison of 21 tests of a single device subjected to several
different testing procedures and steel grades was prepared by Ciampi and is shown in Figure
2-2. The figure on the bottom shows the normalized value (Equation 2-2) obtained from the
21 tests with one standard deviation shown in each direction. The figure on the top shows the
values obtained using the

14
HYSTERETIC DISSIPATED ENERGY

2,0 ;

1.8

1,6

Q T3 _N

0.4 -

0,2 A

0.0

PROPOSED DAMAGE FUNCTIONS

2,0 |

1.8 \

M L4

I 1-2
x) 1-0

g 0.6 J

* 0.4 J

0.2 1

.0 J~~r

f:T^..:t

ABCDEFGHI

Test Case Name

Figure 2-2 Comparison of damage function proposed by Ciampi (Ciampi 1993a)